Latest News and Publications

A Divorce, A Bonus, A Dispute

Published in Chicago Lawyer Magazine, November 2013
By Daniel Stefani

Most compensation these days has two component parts – base salary and discretionary cash, also known as a noncash bonus.
Read More

Amendments to Illinois Supreme Court Rules

Effective July 1, 2013, Illinois Supreme Court Rules 11, 13 and 137 have been amended. The new amendments enable an attorney to represent a client on a limited part of their lawsuit and then withdraw from the case.

Be Careful Who You Talk To

Published in Chicago Lawyer Magazine, July 2013
By Daniel R. Stefani

The Illinois Appellate Court First District recently issued a Supreme Court Rule 23 Order affirming a decision by the Honorable William S. Boyd in the Circuit Court of Cook County.  The case centered around whether an attorney-client relationship was established which prohibited an attorney from communicating with the opposing spouse during a divorce while that opposing spouse was represented by counsel.  It also centered on whether the attorney represented the litigant or was merely acting as a “third-party neutral” as defined by Rule 2.4(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010.  This case, while having limited precedential value, reminds us all as attorneys that we must never lose sight of our ethical obligations even when presumably attempting to do a favor for our friends or family.
Read More

Illinois Family Law Study Committee Recommendations

In 2008, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, named Katz & Stefani principal P. André Katz as chairman of the Illinois Family Law Study Committee. Over the course of several years, that committee – a mix of lawmakers, matrimonial attorneys, judges, and child advocacy professionals – crafted a comprehensive overhaul of the state’s existing Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.
Read More

Illinois Family Law Study Committee Memoranda

Illinois Family Law Reform Bills

Firm principal André Katz chaired the Illinois Family Law Study Committee, tasked with rewriting the state’s divorce and parentage statutes and proposing groundbreaking family law reforms.

Disgorgement of Attorney Fees

Published in Chicago Lawyer Magazine, November 2012
By Daniel R. Stefani

The Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (“IMDMA”) allows for one party to petition the court to order another party to pay their attorneys’ fees during the pendency of a case. If the court finds that both parties lack the financial ability to pay their own attorneys’ fees, the court shall enter an order that allocates available funds for each party’s counsel in a manner that achieves substantial parity between the parties. Available funds include “retainers or interim payments, or both, previously paid”. In such a situation, an attorney for one party may be required to disgorge “retainers, interim payments or both” pursuant to the statute. The Court’s ability to reach into attorneys’ client trust accounts and/or operating accounts to achieve such disgorgement is an issue that the Appellate Court has had to deal with on two occasions in 2012.
Read More

Compelling Payment of College Expenses

Published in Chicago Lawyer Magazine, May 2012
By Daniel Stefani

Ever since I was a young practitioner, I have struggled with Section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (“IMDMA”) which allows a divorced parent to compel the other to contribute to their child’s post-high school educational expenses.
Read More

Substitution of Judge for Cause

Published in Chicago Lawyer Magazine, December 2011/January 2012
By Daniel R. Stefani

Since the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act specifically states that there shall be no trial by jury, the issue of substitution of judges is of particular importance to our area of law. On August 24, 2011, the Supreme Court of Illinois rendered the opinion in In Re Marriage of O’Brien, 2011 WL 3359713 (Ill.). The opinion has not yet been released for publication in the permanent law reports and is therefore subject to revision or withdrawal. The majority held only that the actual prejudice standard applies to a petition seeking a substitution of judge for cause. Justice Garman filed a specially concurring opinion and Justice Karmeier and Justice Kilbride also filed a specially concurring opinion which agreed with affirming the Appellate Court but disagreed with the applicable standard to be applied by the Court.
Read More

Setting of a Support Obligation

Published in Chicago Lawyer Magazine, June 2011
By Daniel R. Stefani

Over the last few years, I have seen a higher frequency of divorce cases where the family’s historic breadwinner is unemployed — some by choice, but others who were victims of the economic downturn. The lucky ones received a severance package. The unlucky ones are forced to live off their assets until a new employment opportunity comes their way.
Read More